Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds real value by declaring 'Code is parsed, never run' and by describing the return shape (severity, rule code, file, line, fix). It doesn't mention limits such as the 200-file / 512KB caps or runtime cost, leaving a small gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the full checklist of checks; the final clause 'Code is parsed, never run' is a high-value closer. No filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter, fully documented, annotation-covered read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, non-execution behavior and the diagnostic return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the files array, the framework enum and resource_name all documented, including the note that framework is auto-detected when omitted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('statically checks') and resource ('a FiveM resource'), then enumerates exactly what is checked: Lua syntax, fxmanifest directives, structure, dependencies, framework API versions, natives, net-event security and backdoors. That enumeration makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like validate_server_cfg and check_compatibility.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case (static analysis of a resource bundle before running it) but never says when to pick this over check_compatibility or validate_server_cfg, nor any exclusions such as size or framework limits. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.